Author
Topic: Need help. Canon 60D for sports--is it better to pony up for the 7D? (Read 15687 times)

Congrats on the 60D purchase. Even though I went for a 7D for myself, if you set up the 60D for birds in flight you will get the practice you need for shooting sports. If I get this wrong I will repost tomorrow.

AI Servo, ISO 800, 1,000 Shutter speed. Partial metering in the centre of the frame. If Things aren't going so well with the number of keepers use centre spot focus. I have my 7D set up this way and was not completely happy so I went out this past weekend and took pics of Seagulls flying. I got better results than on other occaisions. So if you don't at first succeed try, try and try again. I set my 70-200 F4 IS USM to mode 2 for panning. I would prefer to have the 70-200 F2.8Mark ll but it costs more and wasn't out when I purchased the 70-200 F4 IS and 1.4 Extender. I think this lens comboisn't what you will need for indoor sports. 70-200 2.8 IS USM ll and 2X Extender might work. F 5.6 is what I get and it works well outdoors with good lighting from the sun. Good Luck!

7D...I shoot a lot of sports, FPS is a big deal, and so is AF speed/ accuracy. From what I have read, the 7d is better at both.

In sports, when trying to get interesting ACTION shots, a lot can happen in one or two seconds. When an exciting or memorable play happens, I would rather have my 1.5 second burst get me 12 images rather than 8 or 9. Over the course of a game, a week, and a season, you've significantly increased your chances of capturing more great "action" images....(if action shots are what you're looking for).

Lens....for football in the evenings, a good lens would be a 70-200 2.8, or for less money the 200 2.8 prime. I think you have to shoot at 2.8 when light is not great, if you don't you'll be shooting at iso 1600 or higher and that won't look good on either of those bodies when you have to crop an image.(which you will)

I've gone from a 7D to a 5D III. Very, very occasionally I'll look at a sequence and know that the one that nailed the shot wasn't there because of the reduced frame rate. The increase in IQ and low light capability far outweighs the loss of 2 FPS, but I'm not sure I'd want to go lower.

The camera is less important than the lens for what you are trying to do.

When my oldest child became active in soccer I wanted pictures. One attempt at action pictures with a Point and Shoot convinced me I needed an SLR and I purchased a 40D with a 28-135mm IS - immediately things were looking better.

Then the next season I needed more reach as the field got bigger. I first tried a 75-300mm, being on a budget, and the pictures in focus looked good but the number in focus was not fun at all. After one frustrating game, I picked up a 70-200mm f4L and was immediately happy. I missed the reach of the 75-300 but the camera was a pleasure to use. Our sponsor, Roger, puts it this way, this is a "gateway lens".http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-200mm-f4l

You didn't say which football games you want to shoot - if it's anything but Varsity games under the lights I would recommend spending your money on "good" but reasonably affordable lenses like the 70-200 f4L. If it is Varsity that you really want to shoot then yes, faster lenses with IS are going to be important. I happily shoot till sundown, but after a quick search in Lightroom found the last time I tried to shoot a game under the lights was back in 2009 and the shots weren't great. (I need to try this again as I've upgraded to a 7D, use a monopod, and just plain have a bit more knowledge and practice.)

The good news is your choice to move to Canon because of the huge catalog of lenses with offerings at almost every price point. I was kind of depressed for a friend who shoots Sony when he asked for a recommendation for an upgrade to his kit lenses and it was hard to find anything between kit lenses and very-expensive lenses in Sony's lineup. Third party lenses were the only choice for him at the price point he could afford. (There are some good third-party lenses but you have to be a bit pickier in your shopping.)

I won't say the 7D isn't a better camera than the 60D for sports - it is and was a choice I made when upgrading last year. It's also a more complicated camera and it's forced me to be more involved in setting the camera up to do what I want. My main point is either body will be frustrating unless you get lenses that are appropriate for the sports and the conditions you want to shoot in.

On my sports photography journey as a hobbyist, I've learned these lessons:

My 60D works great for birds-in-flight and other AI Servo type shots. Very fast focus, especially in lower light. I have several friends with the 7D, and THEY swear that, even though we have the same sensor, the 60D does a slightly better job with noise in the shadows, which drives them crazy.

Fantastic camera, the 60D. I also have a 5DIII, but I bring the 60D for nature because of the crop factor, and I love to keep it in the car with a 50mm 1.4 for quick portraits and fun shots.

Agree that the lens for the situation is the most important factor once you have a good camera, much more important than minor differences between bodies. Get as long and fast as you can afford for football, but, as others have said, be mindful of the personal moments, for which you might need to swap to a shorter focal length.

I had good opportunity to compare the two bodies side by side in 2011.

As result: I trust my 60D like I never trusted another digital Canon (I went through most anything comparable except EOS 1D Mark IV, Eos 5D III and EOS 1D X.)

By all means, do not go for the 7D. I sold mine because I found the center AF of the 60D to produce more reliable results. I had both camera side by side on a birdcliff for two weeks with circling fulmars and puffins using the 300/2.8 L USM and the 300/4.0 L IS USM. First I thought the 7D was better, then I was disappointed to see that it was fast on the bird but the tracking was slightly off in appr. 90 % when the 70D would miss only 50%. In fact I love my 60D for it's AF. Next thing I shot falcons in flight with it , big Gyrfalcons hunting (300/2., small Sooty Falcons chasing one another (500/4.0). Framerate sometimes was a bit slow for rthe action. But I am very happy with the 60D, best tracking results aside from older EOS 3, EOS 1n or EOS1D models I ever got. Frame rate is constantly delivering 5fps (not so the 7D, which always stays behind what it should be). Buffer never was really an issue on my 60D. I think the 60D is highly underestimated by 7D owners who might wish to believe they own the better camera.

... Many high school stadiums are not well lit and the 7D from what I read is good for sports and should handle the low light situations better than the 60D. Also, I hear the 7D can handle the elements better.....

Low light performance is identical between the two. They have the same sensor, same ISO range, and same Digic 4 processor(s).

Both are stated to be weather sealed although the 7D is supposed to have "better" sealing. With that said, you have to be using a weather sealed lens and filter for the body's sealing to be of any use! Weather sealing is available in most L lenses.

What do y'all think? Is the 7D worth the higher cost over the 60D? I'm not worried about the learning curve and can handle the effort and time it takes to make the 7D or 60D good for sports photography. Also, what lens do you recommend and is it better just to get the body kit for the 7D and save up for a great lens. The 7D at Best Buy has a 18-135mm IS lens but the body kit is $300 less.

Thanks everyone. Feedback would be appreciated.

I'd say the 7D is the better performer for what you want to do with it. Whether it is worth spending the money on just now, I'm not so sure.

If you have the ability to return the 60D and trade up to the 7D with little or no loss, I'd say that's not a bad deal. Otherwise, learn with the 60D over the next few months. Both the 60D and 7D are due to be updated, and probably this year, so learning photography now will help you better to use an updated camera later. You'll still get some money from selling the 60D in a few months, but you'll have learned to use it better!

At the amount the 7D has dropped in price currently it is definitely the best value for the money and not much more than the 60D. One small thing that I didn't see anyone mention yet is the AF manual adjustment feature that you gain with the 7D over the 60D. I'm sure the 60D can keep up a little more or less in more average sports situations but if your focus is off the entire time and you can't adjust it... You gotta go home. You can stay in the game with the 7D if your lens stops landing focus after knowing for sure that it should have, not that I'd be too paranoid about it but it's a good thing to have just in case.

Sounds to me like everyone here basically agrees with the same point that the 7D is a better camera for the job, but might not be for the money. Allow me to throw in my $0.02.

I use a 60D and I love it, granted I do very little sports shooting. I use it mainly for nature/wildlife. Of course the wildlife side shares many requirements of the sports shooting. (requiring fast burst rates and tracking etc.) I would say that the bigger improvements in my photos came from my upgraded glass more than the body. So if you haven't spent that much money in that arena yet, it may be something to consider first. (A 70-200 F4L is a great start for a great price, but get the 2.8 IS if you can afford it.)

The 60D and the 7D have the exact same sensor (despite the differences in processing) so the IQ of each is comparable when shot under equally advantageous circumstances. With that said, the 7D has unquestionably better AF and burst rates. If you find the 60D is giving you trouble in these areas, might be time to consider an upgrade.

If you were to get rid of the 60D for the 7D, would you be able to return it for full refund, or have to sell it? If you were to sell it you would probably take a bath, seeing as how all rumors point to the 7DmII and the 70D being right around the corner. I never sell anything. You never know when you'll need a backup.

Bottom line, decide what's important to you and your shooting needs, and head that direction.

I would consider replacing the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS with one of the EF 70-200 L series as the first step. I am not a big fan of the 18-135 that I got with my 7D. It does not have the USM motor for fast focus, and my copy seemed soft. The negative part of this is, once you aquire a taste for L glass, it could be tough to kick the habit.

7D...I shoot a lot of sports, FPS is a big deal, and so is AF speed/ accuracy. From what I have read, the 7d is better at both.

Not entirely - accuracy of the 60d is somewhat better (see Lensrentals), though both are not very precise in comparison to really good af systems like 1dx/5d3. The main advantage of the 7d is more focus points & firmware customization.

Low light performance is identical between the two. They have the same sensor, same ISO range, and same Digic 4 processor(s).

It isn't - the low light performance of the 60d is better because the 7d has more banding (varying from body to body), so you can underexpose = faster shutter & raise shadows more on 60d. Ymmv how often you're doing this, but banding is something to consider, see the improvement 5d2->6d.

Disclaimer: The 7d is the better camera and I'd switch my 60d for free anytime - but my money goes into glass first unless a body has features I *really* depend on.

Anyone besides me notice that the OP never replied to anyone after his/her initial question? If they are indeed reading the replies here, the money they spend at 'Best Buy' would be foolishly wasted compared to buying online at B&H or Adorama. Talk about retail markup!